Skip to content


A.A.V. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. Manikka Vachaga Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad886; 31Ind.Cas.293
AppellantA.A.V. Periakaruppan Chettiar
RespondentManikka Vachaga Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi and ors.
Cases ReferredIf Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, it. 23, 57 - execution,--notice, issue of--attachment--default on part of decree-holder--dismissal of application--order for execution, whether res judicata. - .....judicata. i cannot accept this argument. in my opinion, the order is vacated by the subsequent dismissal. the language of the privy council in mungul pershad dichit v. grija kant lahiri 11 c.l.r. 113, points to the order being still in force and that is the ratio decidendi in lakshmanan chetti v. kuttayan chetti 24 m.k 669. if sheoraj singh v. kameshar nath (1902) a.w.n. 63, decides anything different, i cannot follow it. i, therefore, do not decide on mr. narasimha aiyangar's other contention that he must be allowed to show now that he had no notice of the prior application, he not having been able to do so at the time owing to the application having been dismissed.2. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Napier, J.

1. It is argued that even though the petition was dismissed under Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision that the decree shall be executed under Order XXI, Rule 23, is' res judicata. I cannot accept this argument. In my opinion, the order is vacated by the subsequent dismissal. The language of the Privy Council in Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri 11 C.L.R. 113, points to the order being still in force and that is the ratio decidendi in Lakshmanan Chetti v. Kuttayan Chetti 24 M.k 669. If Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath (1902) A.W.N. 63, decides anything different, I cannot follow it. I, therefore, do not decide on Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar's other contention that he must be allowed to show now that he had no notice of the prior application, he not having been able to do so at the time owing to the application having been dismissed.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //